When I went to law school in the late ’70s, I followed the progression of cases that we talked about before. I understood the general theme. I'd seen Inherit the Wind.

For anyone, much less a federal judge, to cite Inherit the Wind as a legitimate, educational resource reveals how deeply evolutionary thought and its lies have penetrated the culture. The only educational value of Inherit the Wind is its lesson in evolutionary lies, and just how far they will go.

You see the main tools of evolutionists are lies, and if evolution is to survive they must indoctrinate students with those lies, and if students are to be indoctrinated then teachers must first be indoctrinated. Enter Joel Cracraft who will teach educators about the “evidence” that supports evolution. While he is at it perhaps he can include the “evidence” that supports blood-letting and the flat Earth.

68 comments:

Is evolution pseudoscience?Excerpt:,,, Thus, of the ten characteristics of pseudoscience listed in the Skeptic’s Dictionary, evolution meets nine. Few other pseudosciences - astrology, astral projection, alien abduction, crystal power, or whatever — would meet so many.http://creation.com/is-evolution-pseudoscience

“In science's pecking order, evolutionary biology lurks somewhere near the bottom, far closer to phrenology than to physics. For evolutionary biology is a historical science, laden with history's inevitable imponderables. We evolutionary biologists cannot generate a Cretaceous Park to observe exactly what killed the dinosaurs; and, unlike "harder" scientists, we usually cannot resolve issues with a simple experiment, such as adding tube A to tube B and noting the color of the mixture.”― Jerry A. Coyne - professor of evolution at the University of Chicago

"nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin(ism) can be described as scientific" - Imre Lakatos (November 9, 1922 – February 2, 1974) a philosopher of mathematics and science, quote was as stated in 1973 LSE Scientific Method Lecture

C.S. Lewis: creationist and anti-evolutionistExcerpt: "In 1951 C S Lewis wrote that evolution was “the central and radical lie in the whole web of falsehood that now governs our lives” and modern civilization. Evolution, Lewis explained, is a picture of reality that has resulted from imagination and is “not the logical result of what is vaguely called ‘modern science’.”http://creation.com/c-s-lewis

Darwin's diabolical delusions - Ellis Washington - September 2011Excerpt: Tragically, for over 150 years since the publication of Darwin's diabolical, anti-scientific book, "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life," nonpartisan science, truth, logic and deductive reasoning have been ruthlessly suppressed and replaced with state-funded Darwinist propaganda, groupthink, education atheism, liberal fascism and Machiavellian tactics as demonstrated in the Sewell case representing the ongoing battles between the Darwin Gestapo and Intelligent Design scientists.http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=343445

It's funny that you bring up the Dover trial. The Dover trial's decision was made because ID was seen as a re branded creationism and at every turn evolutionary scientists answered every possible problem with books upon books and entire lectures on the matters at hand.You may call it indoctrination, but normal people just call it teaching. Therefore the only people supporting a teaching of a flat Earth and blood letting are you. You want to "teach the controversy" don't you?

Round-earth theory is religious, because all the arguments for a flat Earth and against a flat Earth make the religious assumption that God wouldn't deceive us. Any court that agrees with a round Earth is therefore a kangaroo court, even if it was actually a real federal court.

DrHunter,That reminds us of how after the 2005 Dover trial, kangaroo court Judge John Jones explained that “I understood the general theme. I’d seen Inherit the Wind"

I believe we have had the discussion before, excerpt from the interview

"Gitschier: Tell us about your education for this case. Although you hadn't heard of ID, you likely had heard of creationism or creation science. Had this been a field that you followed at all?

Jones: No, not other than popular culture. When I went to law school in the late '70s, I followed the progression of cases that we talked about before. I understood the general theme. I'd seen Inherit the Wind."

Your truncating the quote is inaccurate, " the general theme" is equally likely to refer to the law cases he studied in Law School. I believe previously you conceded this point. Using the quote again is troubling, perhaps it was inadvertent

If not " Also known as a continuing misrepresentation, a lie by omission occurs when an important fact is left out in order to foster a misconception"

It makes it seem that your case is weak,

Later in the interview"Gitschier: I don't know if you're even allowed to answer this. Before this case landed on your lap, did you have any thoughts about creationism or evolution, or the debate?

Jones: The precursor to my answer is that it doesn't matter. A judge could be an avowed creationist, but he's got to rule based on the facts and the law. In that event, he'd have to hold his nose and do his duty as a judge."

As for kangaroo, there is no evidence that the Judge is from Australia

Your truncating the quote is inaccurate, "the general theme" is equally likely to refer to the law cases he studied in Law School.

No, there is nothing inaccurate or implied in the quote. I suggested nothing other than "the progression of cases" as the context.

I use the term "kangaroo" to refer to the fact that witnesses issued a plethora of lies which the judge bought, that the judge entered into the trial grossly misinformed by obvious, well known and silly lies that evolutionists have used for years to mislead, and that the judge's verdict was actually written by the ACLU which, in reality, is anti A and anti CL.

If there were indeed multiple lies, where were the experts for the defense, Behe et al.? Either the experts were completely incompetent to catch the supposed lies, or maybe they weren't lies. I think it's the latter.

DrHunter,No, there is nothing inaccurate or implied in the quote. I suggested nothing other than "the progression of cases" as the context

No what? It cannot refer to the legal cases which Judge Jones had spent the first part if the interview reviewing?

Why not use this quote then" When I went to law school in the late '70s, I followed the progression of cases that we talked about before. I understood the general theme."?

For a jurist,this in my opinion makes more sense. Whether intention or not your version of the quote is misleading, it makes a logical connection between the two statements. Its literal accuracy does not exempt it from being a " lie of omission", nor does your purpose. This is Cathecism 101.In the interest of accuracy include the whole statement or none,respectfully.

use the term "kangaroo" to refer to the fact that witnesses issued a plethora of lies which the judge bought, that the judge entered into the trial grossly misinformed by obvious, well known

Silly me I thought you meant the judge was an actual kangaroo,apologies.You are certainly entitled to your opinion as are those who consider it questionable

Your opinion does lend support to the theory that in order to justify the verdict in a court of law, the pro-ID side would have to find a reason beyond its inability to present a persuasive argument for its failure. Your truncated version of the quote,intentionally or not, would disparage the judge's impartiality.That Judge Jones used a Hollywood melodrama as basis for his legal ruling or at least was brainwashed by Spencer Tracy.

silly lies that evolutionists have used for years to mislead,

Something I am sure you wish to avoid even the appearance of.

the ACLU which, in reality, is anti A and anti CL.

Really, would you be so kind to actually prove that claim, that they are anti American and anti Civil Liberties? I would be interested in your reasoning,thanks.

Dover/1995 is important, along with Dayton/1925, not for the reasons pundits and evolutionists think (ie, more defeats for creationism, victory for evolutionary thought, etc), but rather because they are revealing incidents, and important stepping stones of the institutional-ization of evolution's religious dogma into our culture.

Been there, done that, got the T-shirt. You had no response to the same points I made here.

Ha, haaa, good line. But the reason I didn’t respond back then, 2 1/2 years ago, is probably because your fallacies were so obvious. They hardly needed explaining.

For instance, you said this:

A lie, Cornelius, is a deliberate misrepresentation of fact. By accusing Ken Miller of lying about pseudogenes, you are suggesting that he knew that pseudogenes actually work but chose to tell the judge otherwise.

But that is just plainly false. I made no such suggestion that Miller knew pseudogenes actually work. Nor is that in any way implied. Miller’s statement to the judge was unequivocally that the pseudogene does not work:

8 It doesn't9 work. It's a pseudogene, and a pseudogene is10 recognized as a gene because it's so similar to the11 other five in its DNA sequence, but it has some12 mistakes. It's broken, and it has a series of13 molecular errors that render the gene non-functional.

That is the evolutionary interpretation. The pseudogene may work, it may not work. Miller did not know, and his statement of certainty was a lie. This was all explained in the OP and your claim about me saying Miller actually knew that pseudogenes work was just a silly canard.

Pseudogenes are sequences that are very similar to functioning genes observed in related species. They don't work as genes (do not encode proteins). The scientific hypothesis is that they used to be functioning genes that underwent a few mutations. We know which mutations because we can compare pseudogenes to functioning genes.

That's the currently accepted scientific theory. Some bitter hacks might call it a lie, but we'll chalk it up to their general crankiness.

Yes I do. My problem is that a federal judge was lied to. First he was "set up" with an evolutionary propaganda film. Second, the lies continued in the Dover case testimony. There is a pattern of lying and the ACLU facilitates and approves of it. Now those lies have made their way into American jurisprudence. In the pseudogene testimony, the lie was that it is broken, no question about it. But that is the evolutionary interpretation. IOW, it is not simply an empirical observation. It is theory-laden. The fact that you continue to defend this lie is not a good sign. Sure, scientific theories are what are taught in science classes. That doesn't mean it wasn't a lie.

What is it about "It doesn't work" that you don't understand? That is not a tentative statement. He did not say this is speculation or a working hypothesis. He stated it as a scientific finding. It's unfortunate that you need to defend a lie.

You have again quoted Miller out of context. Let's consider the full quote.

"If you could advance the slide, please. I've zeroed in on the six copies of the beta-globin gene sequence. Each of these copies is a set of instructions for how you build this polypeptide. Five of them work, but one of them doesn't. It's given the Greek letters psi, beta, and then the number one. And the psi-beta-1 sequence isn't a gene. It doesn't work. It's a pseudogene, and a pseudogene is recognized as a gene because it's so similar to the other five in its DNA sequence, but it has some mistakes. It's broken, and it has a series of molecular errors that render the gene non-functional."

I have highlighted the relevant portions, from which it is clear that Miller's "It doesn't work" refers to a specific job: the coding of a protein. Five copies of the gene work in that sense, one copy doesn't. That's the pseudogene.

I will stress this again. In his testimony, Miller states that genes normally code for proteins and that some genes lose this capacity through mutations. These pseudogenes, says Miller, do not function as genes. That is a well-established fact.

Hunter, in Judge Jones: I was taken to school, uses a sleight of hand. He objects that "whether the pseudogene is simply broken or has some subtle, perhaps rarely used, function is difficult to say." This objection is irrelevant. A pseudogene may indeed have another function, but that is beside the point. It does not code for proteins. That's what Miller means when he says "It doesn't work." He is making a specific, not sweeping claim.

"Just as we are not certain that the pseudogene has no function and is broken, likewise we are not certain that its DNA sequence contains “errors” or “mistakes,” caused by mutations. That certainly could be the case, but it may not be."

The "just as we are not certain" part is wrong (see above). The rest of this sentence is a crackpot objection to a scientific theory. One can make the same sort of objection to a theory of gravity (Newton's or Einstein's).

We are not absolutely certain that the motion of planets in the solar system is governed by gravity. It is possible that angels push the planets in their orbs. Gravity could certainly be the right explanation, but it may not be. There is no way to rebut this statement. Still, no one takes it seriously in a scientific setting. We can't prove with certainty that gravity is the driving force behind planetary orbits, but we are pretty sure about it. There is no point in making such caveats in a physics class.

I have highlighted the relevant portions, from which it is clear that Miller's "It doesn't work" refers to a specific job: the coding of a protein. Five copies of the gene work in that sense, one copy doesn't. That's the pseudogene. So who is the liar? You are.

You're giving a whole new meaning to the word tendentious. Miller's identification of the pseudogene as a one-time protein-coding gene does not absolve him of the lie as you think--it is yet another lie. And again, the problem is not that the pseudogene is *not* a one-time protein-coding gene. It very well could be. The problem is that, once again, Miller presents this as an unequivocal given.

The identification of a pseudogene as a gene broken by mutations is part of a scientific theory. What is so hard to understand about that? Did you not publish papers where you relied on theory? I believe you did.

Pretty amazing innit? Seven and a half years since the Intelligent Design Creationists had their anti-science stupidly and dishonesty exposed in Kitzmiller v. Dover and the Disco Tooters are still whining about the outcome.

Seven and half years in which they still have produced exactly zero positive evidence for IDC.

"I've seen Inherit the Wind" supplies all of the necessary context. That statement would not be there if Hunter's interpretation of the interview is wrong.

It's exactly the same as a historian saying, "I am informed about the Kennedy assassination. I've seen the movie JFK." The second sentence provides the context, which is that that particular judge is both uninformed, and unethically, unprofessionally, embarrassingly so.

The identification of a pseudogene as a gene broken by mutations is part of a scientific theory. What is so hard to understand about that? Did you not publish papers where you relied on theory? I believe you did.

Yes, but I didn't misrepresent the theory as fact, to a federal judge or anyone else.

Unknown: "I've seen Inherit the Wind" supplies all of the necessary context. That statement would not be there if Hunter's interpretation of the interview is wrong.

It's exactly the same as a historian saying, "I am informed about the Kennedy assassination. I've seen the movie JFK." The second sentence provides the context, which is that that particular judge is both uninformed, and unethically, unprofessionally, embarrassingly so.

Except that Judge Jones was not saying "I am informed about" anything. His answer to the question he was asked was "no" not "yes", and the question was:

Gitschier: Tell us about your education for this case. Although you hadn't heard of ID, you likely had heard of creationism or creation science. Had this been a field that you followed at all?

Jones: No, not other than popular culture. When I went to law school in the late '70s, I followed the progression of cases that we talked about before. I understood the general theme. I'd seen Inherit the Wind.

Here is how the interview went subsequently:

Gitschier: So now it's on your docket, and you must have been curious. Did you Google intelligent design?

Jones: No. I got what I needed in the context of the case. And it was the monster on my docket.

To your question: I think laypersons apprehend that when we get a case, it's incumbent upon us to go into an intensive study mode to learn everything about it. Actually that is the wrong thing to do. The analogy is that when I have a jury trial in front of me, I always instruct jurors, particularly in this day and age when you can Google anything, not to do that. I don't want you to do any research or investigation. Everything you need to decide this case you'll get within the corners of this courtroom.

So it is with me. And I knew that by the time the case went to trial and during the trial, that I would get expert reports.

Gitschier: From whom?

Jones: Everybody. The way expert opinion works is that I get a summary of their testimony first, and that I can read in advance. So I have a flavor for it. So then the question is, why also have them testify? That is because they are subject to cross examination and everything they say may not hold up that well. And, as it turned out, some of it didn't during the trial.

In any event, I was taken to school. From the earliest point in the litigation to the time the briefs were filed, it was the equivalent of a degree in this area. Folks who disagree with my opinion will tell you I never got it right, but I'm confident that I did.

Go back to your last question. It's very critical. I have to decide cases on the facts that are before me. I can't decide a case based on my own opinion, gleaned from outside the courtroom. That's why I don't engage in my own independent investigation. If you look at other systems in other countries throughout the world, they do that. But in our system of justice in the US, we let the parties try their cases and we find the facts from what is presented to us in the courtroom. And the law, presumably we know and we apply the law. That's our job. But the facts that we apply the law to are covered at that time.

Really, would you be so kind to actually prove that claim, that they are anti American and anti Civil Liberties? I would be interested in your reasoning,thanks.

Sure, but isn't this rather obvious? The ACLU has a long-held agenda of enforcing evolution's religious dogma and lies on the rest of us. They initiated Dayton/1925 and were the key legal force behind the Dover/1995 legal victory. Judge Jones' decision, which was essentially a copy/paste of the ACLU's brief, did not merely rebuke the Dover school board. It dictated broad, sweeping measures mandating the teaching of evolutionary lies.

Even setting aside the incendiary language ("evolutionary lies"), you are demonstrably wrong. Judge Jones' decision did not mandate the teaching of evolution. I challenge you to cite a specific passage from the decision that does that. You can't.

Incendiary language? The constant claim of evolutionists is that evolution is a scientific fact. Now evolution may be true, false, or somewhere in between. I don't know. But it is not a scientific fact. That claim is a claim not about the truth of evolution (a difficult topic), but of our knowledge of the truth of evolution (an easier topic). We may not know whether, and to what degree, evolution occurred, but we most certainly do know what the evidence is. There is no question at all that evolution is not a scientific fact. Nor is there any question that evolutionists are aware of the evidence. They know full well that evolution is not a scientific fact. The comparison to gravity, cancer, the roundness of the Earth, are ridiculous, over-the-top lies. There's nothing incendiary about it. It is just a plain and obvious lie. Now if you remove the word "scientific" it is a different story. When evolutionists merely claim evolution to be a fact (which they derive from their non scientific beliefs), then OK. But when they wrap themselves in science then it is simply a lie.

Thank you for the rewrite, you see you can still maintain the level of fanaticism without resorting to cheap tricks.

Hear hear. Now if we could only get CH to stop with the dishonest equivocation between the observed fact of evolution - branching diversification and morphological changes in animal populations over deep time - and the theory of evolution - the mechanisms which explain the observed fact.

But I won't hold my breath. That particular equivocation has always been CH's favorite play-pretty.

Thorton Hear hear. Now if we could only get CH to stop with the dishonest equivocation between the observed fact of evolution .....- and the theory of evolution - the mechanisms which explain the observed fact.

but it demonstrates again that you have an uncommon sense of fair play . Congrats

Thank you V, but it most certainly is not that I'm any better than anybody else. It is that I could care less if evolution is true or not. I'd be delighted to argue for it, but religious lies need to be called out.

DrHunter,The ACLU has a long-held agenda of enforcing evolution's religious dogma and lies on the rest of us.

And defends freedom of religionThe ACLU of Pennsylvania (2012) filed a brief in support of a fifth grader's right to share her religious beliefs with classmates by distributing invitations to a Christmas party hosted by a local church.

The ACLU of Virginia (2012) represented four Sikh men challenging a law that allows ordained ministers to receive a license to perform marriages without posting a bond, but requires representatives of religions that have no ordained ministers, like Sikhism, to post a $500 bond.

The ACLU of Louisiana (2012) filed a lawsuit on behalf of a member of Raven Ministries, a Christian congregation that regularly preaches the Gospel in New Orleans's French Quarter. The lawsuit challenged a city ordinance that restricts religious speech on Bourbon Street after dark. As a result of the lawsuit, a federal judge issued an order that blocks enforcement of the law.

Are you saying defending Christians the right to express their views is Unamerican? I am shocked.

They initiated Dayton/1925

Where they argued against this "That it shall be unlawful for any teacher in any of the Universities, Normals and all other public schools of the State which are supported in whole or in part by the public school funds of the State, to teach any theory that denies the Story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals."

Even with your tortured view of the TOE, it would be hard to argue that this law was not an establishment of particular religion.So in your view it is Unamerican to defend the Bill of Rights?

and were the key legal force behind the Dover/1995 legal victory. Judge Jones' decision, which was essentially a copy/paste of the ACLU's brief

I would expect the ACLU might say, the Constitution was the main force.

In other words, you do care, a lot. In fact, you are completely obsessed with whether "evolution is true or not", and you will resort to any lie, distortion, red herring, strawman, quote mine, false accusation, malicious demonization, and cowardly evasion to try to convince yourself and others that evolution and the theory of evolution are evil blasphemy, and not "true".

"If such people were lower animals, we would probably kill them off to prevent them from spreading. Humanity will not allow this, but we do have the remedy of separating the sexes in asylums or other places and in various ways preventing intermarriage and the possibilities of perpetuating such a low and degenerate race. Remedies of this sort have been tried successfully in Europe and are now meeting with some success in this country."

“Elisha left Jericho to go to Bethel and on the way some boys came out of a town and made fun of him. "Get out of here, Baldy!" they shouted.Elisha turned around, glared at them, and cursed them in the name of the Lord. Then two she-bears came out of the woods and tore forty-two of the boys to pieces.”

Neal,Humanity will not allow this, but we do have the remedy of separating the sexes in asylums or other places and in various ways preventing intermarriage and the possibilities of perpetuating such a low and degenerate race

The intermarriage of white persons with negroes, mulattoes, or persons of mixed blood, descended from a negro to the third generation inclusive of their living together as man and wife in this State is prohibited. The legislature shall enforce this section by appropriate legislation.

Apparently it was only the denial of Divine Creation in the Bible of man they disagreed with. After all going to war the retain the privilege of keeping the institution of slavery,hardly indicates a progressive view of racial equality.

CH, I suggest that evolutionary materialism zealots need to be held to answer the list of questions here. (And since it looks like issues of Scopes and the like have come up, I suggest a read here on in context.) Given the presence of known slanderers, I speak just once for record, the onlooker is invited to understand that slanderers are just that and those that enable them are just that, cf. here. I further suggest that those who wish to follow New Atheist sophomoric slanders against the Judaeo-Christian tradition at the basis of our civilisation, would be wise to ponder the concerns and issues here on. KF

If Gordon Elliott Mullings of Manjack Heights Montserrat wasn't such a cowardly hypocrite he wouldn't spend all his time hiding at UD. He's go to places like TheSkepticalZone where Dr. Liddle has repeatedly invited him to defend his ID nonsense.

But Gordon Elliott Mullings of Manjack Heights Montserrat is such a cowardly hypocrite, so all he does is hide at UD with his potty-mouthed new best friend Joe Gallien.

CH, I suggest that evolutionary materialism zealots need to be held to answer the list of questions here.

As an evolutionary physicalist (the preferred name) I am happy to answer the questions. It will have to be here rather than at Uncommon Descent, though, as I am unable and, hence, now unwilling to post there. UD is somewhat less tolerant than CH.

"CH, I suggest that evolutionary materialism zealots need to be held to answer the list of questions here."

Well isn't that special. gordo mullings, the two-faced, lying, evangelical, fundy, dominionist, YEC zealot thinks that what he 'suggests' (actually demands) matters to anyone but himself.

"(And since it looks like issues of Scopes and the like have come up, I suggest a read here on in context.)"

gordo, you should seriously consider joining this century one of these days.

"Given the presence of known slanderers.."

Yeah, who let you and your fellow god pushing slanderers in here?

"..., I speak just once..."

If only.

"...for record..."

ROFLMAO! gordo thinks that everything he says is divinely carved into stone tablets that the whole world should, and does worship. What a pompous lunatic.

"..., the onlooker is invited to understand that slanderers are just that and those that enable them are just that, cf. here."

Yeah, arrington and cornelius should feel ashamed for harboring and enabling slanderers like you and your 'ilk', gordo. Oh wait, arrington and cornelius ARE your 'ilk'.

"I further suggest that those who wish to follow New Atheist sophomoric slanders against the Judaeo-Christian tradition at the basis of our civilisation, would be wise to ponder the concerns and issues here on."

Cornelius G. Hunter is a graduate of the University of Illinois where
he earned a Ph.D. in Biophysics and Computational Biology. He is
Adjunct Professor at Biola University and author of the award-winning Darwin’s God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil. Hunter’s other books include Darwin’s Proof, and his newest book Science’s Blind Spot
(Baker/Brazos Press). Dr. Hunter's interest in the theory of evolution
involves the historical and theological, as well as scientific, aspects
of the theory. His website is http://www.darwins-god.blogspot.com/